E 

3is 



(/ 



Jt 




aass_L45:21 



^mtw af ^av. ^fmuouvfi ^csGiigc. 



SPEECH 



OF 



HON. ALEXANDER H. BAILEY, 



OS* 









ONE ^ 




IN SENATE -JANUARY 29, 1863. 



ALBANY: 

WEED, PARSONS & COMPANY, PRINTERS. 

1863. 



^'i^ 






West. Eesi Hissfe. Soe. 



SPEECH. 



Me. Chairman: 

I have no other purpose to-night than to at- 
tempt a review of so much of the Governor's 
Message as relates to National affairs. The time 
which this will necessarily consume, study brev- 
ity as I may, will leave me no opportunity for a 
formal reply to the Honorable Senator from the 
third. I must confine myself strictly to this pur- 
pose, or become wearisome beyond endurance. 

I listened to the reading of this message, 
sir, with a sincere desire that I might be able to 
acquiesce in all its statements and conclusions. 
Divided counsels had already produced their 
inevitable results upon the country. A loyal 
people who, eighteen months ago, stood united 
and therefore invincible, had become discordant, 
uncertain of purpose and therefore brought to 
the brink of ruiu. I was prepared 'o follow 
any leader, Democrat or Republican, who would 
sink the partizan in the patriot, and unite all 
loyal men in the great work of putting down 
thi-i rebellion. I was di.«posed to avoid all irri- 
tating and useless discussion, to sacrifice my 
own views where principle was not involved, 
and adopt any plan which promised success. I 
hoped to find in this message a clear, distinct 
policy enunciated. I hoped also to find such 
appeals as would allay discontent, animate droop- 
ing courage, and establish public confidence in 
our cause 

It is, therefore, with profound sorrow that I 
am compelled to nay that there is much in this 
message of an exactly opposite tendency. If I 
did not think so, I should take no part in this 
debate. A mere difference of opinion as to the 
cause of this war and the proper mode of con- 
doc'ina; it, is inevitable and harmless in itself. 
But when these differences are so discu'sed as to 
weaken and i)erhap3 paralyze the Administra- 
tion, through which al"ne the country can be 
saved and peace r stored, the effect is only mis- 
chievous, however patriotic the motive may be. 

The business of the hour is the salvation of 



the government. A large section is in arms ior 
its destruction. This rebellion will succeed un- 
less put down by force. Force can only be used 
through the constituted authoritifs at Washing- 
ton. These authorities are powerless without 
the support of the people. 

I think these propositions self-evident. And 
it follows from them, that unless the people do 
sustain the Administration in tlie prosecution of 
the war, the rebellion will succeed and the coun- 
try be destroyed. It is manifestly then the duty 
of every loyal citizen, high and low, to be found 
beneath the standard of his country, aEd to 
leave the conduct of the war to those whom the 
the constitution has made our leaders. It is not 
the part of exalted patriotism to stand afar cfl' 
and rail at the generalship, while the smoke of 
battle enshrouds tlie contending hosts, and that 
standard is being torn and riven by the missiles 
of the enemy. Nor when we have taken the 
field is it wise to spend our time in quarreling 
with our fellow soldiers instead of fighting the 
common foe. In short, it is madness for us, as a 
people, to imitate the factions in Jerusalem 
when the Romans were thundering at its gates, 
by weakening and dfgtroying each other in every 
lull of the storm which threatens to overwhelm 
us. 

And it is not necessary to ignore the errors 
and faults of our rulers in order to support the 
government. I concede the propriety and use- 
fulness of free discussion of every act of the Ad- 
ministration. What I condemn is the exercise 
of this right in a way calculated to distract the 
people, and lead them, if possible, to believe 
that it is more important to crush the Adminis- 
tration than the rebellion 

The part of the message we are considering 
contains much that we all approve. His faith 
that the country may yet be saved — his condem- 
nation of disobedience to constituted authori- 
ties — the call he makes for economy and inte- 
grity in public affairs — his veneration for the 



constitution — bis declaration that the people of 
this State will never willinglj assent to disunion 
— are the sentiments of each one of us. 

But this is not all he says — indeed it is a very 
small part of what he says. The greater portion 
of the message is devoted to the discussion of 
the causes of the war, and in attacks upon the 
administration. 

During the early period of this struggle, the 
discussion of the causes of the war was dropped 
by common consent. Every good citizen felt 
that such a discussion could do no good, but 
would inevitably lead to strife and bitterness. 
The unanimity which resulted from this course, 
proved its wisdom, while the discord now per- 
vading the North is, to a great extent, attribut- 
able to the persistent efforts of politicians to 
revive the contest. I regret, therefore, that the 
Governor has thought it necessary to renew the 
discussion of the causes of the war. But since 
he has done it — since he has forced the question 
upon us — I cannot consent by silence, to seem 
to acquiesce in statements which I deem incor- 
rect in fact, and evil in tendency. I am not 
willing that the discussion, if there must be one, 
shall be all on one side. 

His Excellency commences with the proposi- 
tion that " there are now no causes for discord 
that have not always existed in our country, and 
which were not felt by our fathers in forming 
the UnioD." 

His subsequent argument shows that he here 
refers principally, if not entirely, to slavery. It 
is true, Sir, tiiatthis institution then existed and 
that it now exists. But it is not true that it was 
then the same as now, in position, — in spirit, in 
ambition or in power, even relatively. It was 
then a mere industrial institution. It has since 
usurped a position entirely diti'erent. It has 
become a great political power overshadowing 
the land and demanding the control of the Go- 
vernment as the condition of its loyalty. Our 
fathers had no such monstrous demands to com- 
promise and adjust. This imperiiim in imperto 
did not then exist. 

The Governor continues — " If the North and 
the South had understood the power and pur- 
poses of each other, our contentions would have 
been adjusted." 

Had the South understood the power of the 
loyal States, and their determination to maintain 
the Union at any cost, it is possible that the re- 
bellion might have been postponed, but that is 
all. The Noith could not have prevented the 
rebellion by any concessions which even Gover- 
nor Seymour would make. I say by any con- 
cessions, for it tuust be remembered that when 
compromise and adjustment is spoken of, it 
always means demands on the part of the South, 
and concessions on the part of the North. 

Tile ollense alleged by the rebels at the time 
of the outbreak, was ihe election and inaugura- 
tion of Mr. Lincoln, an event secured by them- 
selves as certainly as if they had directly voted 
for him. They determined that he should be 
elected, and lor the very purpose of precipitating 
the rebellion. And is tliere a respectable man at 
the North who would have consented to the 



violent deposition of Mr. Lincoln, even if it 
would have prevented the rebellion ? 

No Sir, this assertion that the war might have 
been averted, so constantly repeated of late, and 
which is doing its work of evil amongst us, is a 
mere gratuitous assumption. It has not a part- 
icle of proof to rest upon. It utterly ignores the 
whole rebel programme as stated over and over 
again by themselves. It refuses to see, what is 
apparent to the whole world, that this rebellion 
had been determined for over thirty years — that 
its plans were forming during that whole period 
— and that their complaints of Northern aggres- 
sion was a mere cloak to conceal their actual 
purpose, and a means employed to drag their 
own people into the conspiracy. 

No Sir, it was ambition, a thirst for power that 
made these men rebels, not any real or imaginary 
injustice on the part of the North, they them- 
selves being witnesses 

Says the Governor again : " Affrighted at the 
ruin they have wrought, the authors of our ca- 
lamities at the North and South insist that this 
war was caused by an unavoidable contest about 
slavery." 

This is a remarkable sentence. Let us analyze 
it. It asserts 

1st. That a portion of the people at the North are 
" authors" of this war. 

2d. That they are equally guilty with the actual rebels 
for the ruin wrought. 

3d. That these " authors" North and South alike 
insist "thut this war was caused by an unavoidable con- 
test about slavery ." 

Sir, I affirm that each and every of these pro- 
positions is untrue as matter of fact, and that 
the first two are monstrous. 

First, as to the assertion that a poition of the 
people at the North are authors of this rebellion. 
Who are the persons against whom this charge 
is made 1 He cannot, does not mean that little 
squad of fanatics heretofore known as abolition- 
ists 1 They were so insignificant in numbers 
and so totally without political influence, that 
his Excellency would not attribute to them such 
tremendous powers for evil. No, sir, he does 
not mean them. He brings this accusation 
against tJie republicans of the North, so recently 
largely in the majority in the loyal States, and 
who would now be in the majority, as I verily 
believe, if our armies were at home. 

And what is the charge 1 That they are au- 
thors, not the sole authors, to be sure, but still 
authors, of this rebellion. In other words, that 
they did something, or omitted to do something, 
which not only occasioned the war, but which 
justified it also. For unless they made the 
war necessary and right, they cannot be called 
authors of it. To say that they are, by reason 
of anything short of this, is to pervert language, 
contound the most obvious distinctions, and 
talk nonsense. It is like saying that tlie vic- 
tims of the St. Bartholomew massacre, becau.se 
they were hated by the assassins, were the au- 
thors of that massacre. Or it is like that logic 
which declares that the majority of the Assembly 
were the authors of the recent disorders there, 
because they would not permit the minority to 
control the House. 



But waiving all this, what had the re])uhlicaii.s 
actually douo 1 Was the election of Abraluiin Liu- 
colu their offence 1 No. Gov. Sejmour tell.s us 
in this verj' message that Mr. Lincoln was cousti- 
tutioually eloclod — and he is the last Governor 
in this country or any other to question a right 
secured by that instrument. 

Was it the so-called agilalion of the slavery 
question 1 I might reply that republicans were 
only a portion of those engaged in this agita- 
tion — that slavery was aggressive — that its advo- 
cates, North and Soulh.made it their constant 
theme everywhere and upon all occasions — but 
I cannot stop for this. 1 wisli merely to inquire 
whether any man will say that the discussion of 
slavery at the North is just cause for rebellion 
at the South ! 

And above all, can Gov. Seymour, who in this 
same message so emphatically demands free dis- 
cussion, who so solemnly and almost threaten- 
ingly declares that " there must be no attempt to 
put down the full expression of public opinion" — 
who is so tender in regard to constitutional 
rights that he declares, in substance and effect, 
that the general government shall not, in time 
of war, arrest a traitor in this State without due 
process of law — will he say that this constitu- 
tional right of free discussion, when exercised 
by republicans, is just cause for war on the part 
of the South ? 

But perhaps I shall be told that the Governor 
in this proposition did not refer to the election 
of Mr Lincoln, nor yet to the agitation of the 
slavery question. I know that there are no 
specifications, that this monstrous charge is 
wrapped in " glittering generalities," but if 
he did not mean these things, what did he mean ? 
The only approach to deliniteness is the asser- 
tion that " we are to look for the causes of this 
war in a pervading disregard of the obligation 
of laws and constitutions ; in disrespect for con- 
stituted authorities ; and above all in the local 
prejudices which have grown up" in certain 
quarters which he names. 1 am compelled to 
guess even here at the meaning. I presume, 
however, that personal liberty bills and opposi- 
tion to the fugitive slave law, are referred to in 
the first part of the sentence. 

It is no part of my purpose to defend these 
bills or that opposition. But will any sane man 
deliberately assert that these things caused the 
war ? It would be easy, if there were time, to 
show that the rebellion would just as certainly 
have come, if no liberty bill had ever beer: en- 
acted, and if every fugitive slave had been seized, 
carried back and presented by us on our knees, 
to his master. I have already shown that this 
rebellion was caused by the unbridled ambition 
of the conspirators ancl nothing else. 

But this subject of liberty bills tempts me to 
digress a moment and make an inquiry. Was it 
not the object of these bills to prevent the abduc- 
tion of citizens and freemen and the " carrymg 
of them many hundred miles to distant prisons 
in other states or territories?" i^nd is there 
net a striking analogy between the purpose of 
these acts, and the purpose of the Governor of 
this state, expressed in this message, to prevent 



the military arrest and abduction of cllizonB of 
this slftto 1 

But I must pa.sH on to the s.'cond propoMJUon 
of the Governor embcdied in the pariigrni*h I am 
considering, viz. : that llie nortii.MU auihortt of 
I his war (rncaniuL' tlio Kepublicuns) an- equally 
guilty with tiio rebels for the ruin wrought. 

Sir, I shall not trust myself to rluiracu-rizx 
this jiropopition as it deserves. As W.-bstiT huid 
of Massachusetts — there it is, behold it and 
judge for yourselves. I would not exhibit " dirt- 
respect for constituted authorities," for that, wh' 
are told, was one of the causes of this war— but 
I will ask if there be a man here or elsewhere 
who will defend this proposition? I will only 
add, that it is a cruel imputation upon at leas't 
one-half the people of the northern states who 
never conceived a treasonable design or spoke a 
treasonable word — who never found an excuse 
for standing aloof when their country was in 
danger, and who have freely devoted their lives 
and fortunes to the work of putting down this 
rebellion. 

And now, sir, a word in regard to the third 
proposition contained in this paragraph, viz. : 
that these authors of the war, north and south — 
meaning the rebels of the south and the Repub- 
licans of the north — alike insist that this war 
was caused by an unavoidable contest about 
slavery. 

It is not of much consequence, but this pro- 
position is not true. It is not true as to the posi- 
tion of the rebels even — but I shall not stop to 
discuss that. As respects the Republicans, I 
deny emphatically that they have ever said any 
such thing. They did say that the subject of 
slavery was unnecessarily and wantonly forced 
upon the country by the unceasina and arrogaii' 
demands of the slave power. But they hav.- 
never said that this controversy was the cause of 
the war. On the contrary, they have always in- 
sisted, and they now insist, that this controversy 
had nothing to do with the war — that the slave 
power, uninfluenced by any real or imaginary 
provocation, but in-tigated solely by ambition 
and the devil, inaugurated this rebellion. 

If any man desires to state that an unavoida- 
ble contest about slavery was the cause of the 
war, let him do so as an original proposition 
and ui)on his ownresponsiblity — but no man has 
a right to state it as a proposition of the Rei>ub- 
licans, to give himself au opportunity to refute 
it. 

If the allegation had been that Repuhjicans 
insist that slaverj- — not the controversy about 
it — but that slavery itself was the cause of the 
war, it would have been substantially correct. 
We have said that. And what we mean by it 
is, that this unholy ambition of which I have 
spoken, and which inauizurated hostilities, is 
born of and is sustained by slavery — that this 
institution, of its own inherent corrupljon, 
breeds traitors to a government and constitution 
which secure equal rights to all. 

Again, the Governor says thai '♦ the spirit of dig 
obedience has sajtped the foumlation of muni- 
cipal, state and national authority in every part 
of our land." As is usual in the message, this 



statement makes no distinction between rebellion 
in the Soutb and disorderly conduct in the North. 
The proposition seems to be tliat this spirit of 
disobedience, uniform in character and develop- 
ment, exists everywhere in our country. On 
the Rappahannock and the Hudson — at Vicks- 
burgh and in New York — in South Carolina and 
in Massachusetts. That several states have 
disobeyed the national authority and taken up 
arms against it, thus causing the war, is very 
certain ; but why continually mix together, in 
this bewildering way, the people who are fight- 
ing the government and the people who are 
not ? But no matter. This rebuke of the spirit 
of disobedience to lawful authority, is well- 
timed. There have been recent exhibitions of law- 
lessness here in the loyal states, that may well ex- 
cite the alarm of every good citizen. It is but 
a few months ago, that an ex-mayor of New 
York proposed to revolutionize that city and 
and make it an independent power ! And that 
man, by the way, has just been elected a mem- 
ber of Congress. It is but a few weeks since 
the Legislature of Pennsylvania was suri'ounded 
by a mob to overawe and control the action of 
that bod.y. It is only yesterday that a similar 
mob gathered in your Assembly Chamber for a 
similar purpose. Upon the floor of your own 
Legislature threats were made that a certain 
candidate for speaker should never take his 
seat, if elected. There are now persons and 
journals among us, whose ceaseless business it 
seems to be to stir up a revolution against tlie 
general government. If this Jacobinical spirit 
be not put down, and that speedily, we shall 
not only lose our national government but our 
state government also. Not only will the Federal 
Constitution be destroyed, but our state lavvs 
and institutions will disappear wiib it. I re- 
joice, tlierefore, to find this condemnation of 
disobedience and lawlessness in the message, 
and I pray that His Excellency will crush it out 
in this State, by all the constitutional means he 
possesses. 

But I must hasten on. The Governor next 
says — that " When the leaders of the insurrec- 
tion at the extreme South, say that free and 
slave states catmot exist tognther in the Union, 
and when this is echoed from the extreme 
North by the enemies of our constitution, both 
parties simply say they cannot because they 
will not respect the laws and the constitution." 

Tiiis maj^ be good rhetoric, but it surely is 
bad logic. Admit the premises, still the conclu- 
sion is a no7i-sequitur. How an abstiact opinion 
that free and slave states cannot exist together, 
even when expressed, makes a man declare that 
he is unable to obey the laws and constitution 
and that he will violate them, is not apparent. 

But waiving such criticism, I say that these 
premises are made up of false assumptions. 
Put in plain language, the propositions assumed 
are the.-e : 

1. The leaders of the insurrection at the ex- 
treme south say that free and slave states cannot 
exist together in the Union. 

2. The people of New England say the same 
thing. 



That this may have been said at the south is 
very possible, although I do not remember ever 
to have seen any such remark in any defence of 
the rebellion. The rebels have said from the 
first, and now say that they will not remain in 
the Union, not that they cannot. They have de- 
clared that they will not respect the laws and 
constitution, not that such, obedience is impossi- 
ble. 

But however this may be, I deny that tlie 
people of New England have ever said that free 
and slave states could not exist together in the 
Union. Whether this may or may not have 
been said by that close corporation, the aboli- 
tionists of New England, I neither know nor 
care. For it is entirely immaterial for the pur- 
poses of my argument, whether they have or 
not. We are looking for the causes of this war. 
And no one will pretend that the sayings or doings 
of this small body of men were of the least 
political consequence. And, as I have before 
said, Gov. Seymour does not refer to them. He 
means New England, when he designates the ex- 
treme North, and when he speaks of the enemies 
of the Constitution at the extreme North, he 
means the people of New England, except that 
very small and select circle of Yankees who 
agree with him in politics. 

I repeat, sir, the people of New England have 
never said that free and slave states could not ex- 
ist together in the Union. On the contrary, they 
and the republicans of the whole North have 
alike insisted that free and slave states could 
exist together in the Union — nay, that such a 
connection could and should be entirely harmo- 
nius, and that this would be so if the slave states 
would obej' the Constitution and content them- 
selves with the rights guarantied by that instru- 
ment. 

But I shall be asked if republicans have not 
said that there is an irrepressible confiict be- 
tween freedom and slavery. Yes. But that is 
a very diiferent thing from saying that free and 
slave states cannot exist together in the Union. 
To illustrate I may say that there is an irrepressi- 
ble confiict between capital and labor, but will 
anyone contend that this is equivalent to saying 
that capital and labor cannot exist together in 
the same political community '? 

Labor may strive to procure the largest possi- 
ble renumeration for the smallest possible amount 
of service, and capital may strive to obtain the 
greatest possible amount of service for the least 
possible amount of compensation, and yet capital 
and labor always have and always will exist 
together. 

And, sir, this irrepressible conflict between 
freedom and slavery may go on, and never fur- 
nish a justifiable cause for a pro-slaverj' war, 
any more than the eternal conflict between capi- 
tal and labor furnishes cause for an agrarian war. 

When we say that there is an irrepressible 
conflict between freedom and slavery, we simply 
recognize a fact which now exists and which 
always has existed. We do not say that it 
should be or that it should not be. There it 
is, whether we will or not. It springs from 
the nature of slavery and the constitution 



of the huraan mind as framed by its creator. 
And lie who says that it shall be put down, 
imitates the rojal Canute when he ordered the 
waves of the ocean not to touch his feet — to 
borrow an illustration used by the Senator from 
the Third. And I rei)eat the denial, that the 
recognition of this fact, says or inipliog, either 
that free and slave states cannot exist together, 
or that we cannot, or that we will not obey the 
laws and constitution. 

Cut I shall be again asked, if Republicans have 
not said that the present relation of free and 
slave states could not always continue, and that 
tlie states would ultimately become all slave or 
all free. Yes, some of them have expressed this 
opinion, or rather made this prediction, for it is 
simply a {)rediction ; but this also is a veiy dilFe- 
rent thins from saying that free and slave states 
caroiot exist toCT^lher in the Union. Nay, this 
opinion or prediction, call it what you will, nec- 
essarily supposes the exact contrary, viz.: that 
they will remain tosetherin the Union until this 
irrepressible conllict shall have triumphed on the 
one side or the other, until freedom or slavery 
shall have overshadowed and absorbed the other, 
and the whole Union thus become alike in institu- 
tions and homogeneous in policy. It expresses 
the opinion that this irrepressible conflict will 
ultimately produce this result. It does not say 
or imply that the free and slave states cannnot, 
in the mean time, exist tooether. Neither does 
it say or imply, that those who hold this opinion 
intend to disobey the laws and constitution. 

Asain, the Governor says that " this war should 
have been averted." I would not pause over this 
brief sentence were it not to call attention to the 
peculiar manner in which Governor Seymour 
speaks of the War throughout the m ssage. 
Possessing great powers of denunciation which 
are freely exercised in this message, he never 
employs these powers against the rebellion, and 
he never charges upon it the unu terable woes it 
has inflicted. He never strikes a rebel unless he 
can couple a Yankee with him, so that the latter 
shall receive at least, half the blow. We never 
• hear a clear ringing appeal to the people to cease 
their political (quarrels and unite heart and hand 
to put down this infernal rebellion And yet no 
man in America could this day arouse tiie North 
to such a pitch of patriotism fervor as might 
Horatio Seymour. lie is the leader of a great, 
patriotic and triumphant party. Every man of 
that party, whose support is worth having, would 
hail with enihusiasm a declaration from him, 
that we would never submit to this rebellion, 
but that we would crush it out. Alas Sir, this 
appeal has not been made. We have instead, 
many patriotic generalities, the most of which 
I have quoted. We asked for bread and we have 
received a stone. We are informed ''that defe- 
rence " is due our rulers provided they keep 
within the limits of their jurisdiction. 

It is ever conceded that ■' at this moment, the 
fortunes of our country are injlucnccd'^ — Heaven 
save the mark — " are influenced by battles." We 
are told, in as few words as the idea could be ex- 
pressed, that " our armies in the field must be 



8Ui)ported," and that "all constiluUonal demandd 
(was it worth while to suppose that Itiero would 
bo any «)ther !) of the governmeiu, must Ixj 
promptly respondnd to." Hut h'stlln'se int<'rlo- 
cutory remarks should bo misunderstood, we 
have Jtage after page of misrepresentation and 
denunciation, of at least, one-half the people of 
the Northern states; asserting among other 
things, that they are as much authors of ihin 
war as the rebels thenifseUvs, and that tiiey are 
jointly responsible with ihem for all thn " ruin 
wrought." Wo are told that the President of 
the United Slates, honest to a proverb, atid the 
least ambitious of men, has usurped more than 
regal powers, and without the shadow of an ex- 
cuse, has trampled the federal constitution and 
the rights of sovereiLtn states beneath his feet. 

We have also an elaborate argument to show, 
that one section of the loyal stales should array 
itself against another; and to cap the climax, 
we have the positive assurance that we cannot 
subdue this rebellion, from which results the 
necessary inference tliat our military defence 
ought to cease. 

But ST, I am wandering. The expression is 
that " the war should have been averted." Let 
us examine this a little more critically, for it is 
another peculiarity of the G.)v.-rnor to sometimes 
insinuate oU'ensive charges raUier than make 
them, and to cover up a fallacy with plausible 
words — as a pill is coa'ed with sugar, that it 
may be swallowed without betraying its nauseous 
qualities. 

Observe then, it is not said that the war should 
never have been inaugurated or commenced, 
which would have thrown the blame up n the 
scoundrels who causelessly took up arms, but the 
carefully conned and deliberately framed expres- 
sion is : " The war should hive been averted," 
which casts the blame upon the miserable 
Yankees. The war s/iould have been averted ; 
that is, it could have been. There were persons 
who could have done this. Nobody will under- 
stand him here to refer to the rebels. Every- 
body will understand him to say, that the per- 
sons who could thus have averted the war were 
the Republicans of the North. He nowhere tells 
us how they could have doue this, bat he over 
and over again insinuates the charge. 

But I shall be told that the Governor means 
that we could have averted the war by accepting 
the Crittenden compromise. This is an old sto- 
ry, and my reply must be very brief. My answer 
then is — 1st. That this is a mere gratuitom as- 
sumption without a particle of proof to sustain 
it. If we are to believe the rebels themselves, 
they would have spurned the con»'es.sion with 
scorn. 2d. That this compromise could not 
have averted«the war unless it was accepUjd be- 
fore the war, and that the Democrau of the 
north themselves voted down this identical pro- 
position in Congress, at least twice before the 
war. That the responsibility, therefore, of nit 
averting the war by this measure, rests npon 
them and not upon the Ilepublcans. That the 
making of this concession alier the war, would 
have been a cowardly yielding to violenue wha( 



had been deliberately and repeatedly denied to 
argument. 

We now come to the Governor's treatise on 
State rights, martial law, and military arrests. 
To attempt anything like a critical examination 
of this elaborate argument would consume hours, 
and I cannot venture to ask such an indulgence 
from the Senate. I shall, therefore, from neces- 
sity, merely glance at these subjects. I would 
not even do that except to point out what I think 
is a spirit of bitterness against the general gov- 
ernment, and an unwarrantable perversion of 
its purposes. 

I concede, sir, that there is much in this argu- 
ment which is entirely sound. The general 
proposition that the Federal and State govern- 
ments are distinct, and that the rights of each 
must be respected, no one will dispute. The 
importance of a strict obedience to the constitu- 
tion cannot be too strongly expressed. That 
property and persons shall be secure from un- 
justitiable seizure and arrest, is a principle we 
all maintain. There is no difference of opinion 
between the administration at Washington and 
the administration at Albany about these things ; 
and yet the whole of this phillipic against the 
federal administration is built upon the assump- 
tion that the officers of the general government 
deny these fundamental principles. 

The position of the administration upon these 
subjects, as I understand it, is briefly and in sub- 
stance tills : 

That the constitution amply provides for, its 
own preservation, and also for the preservation 
of the government it creates. If it did not, it 
would be a failure, because inadequate to save 
even itself. That the destruction of the govern- 
ment is the destruction also of the constitution — 
and therefore the constitution confers upon the 
government every power aecessary for its own 
self-preservation. It does not, in the language 
of this message, leave the government to '' as- 
sume" such powers, but the instrument itself 
confers them — and consequently that the exer- 
cise of such powers, in a proper case, cannot be 
in violation of, but is in obedience to, the con- 
stitution. At a moment, then, when a gigantic 
rebellion springs, ready armed, upon the gov- 
ernment, it is not only authorized, but com- 
manded, to use every means necessary to put 
down the insurrection and save itself. And in 
such an extremity, every means allowed by the 
laws of war which will strengthen the govern- 
ment and weaken the enemy in the conflict, may 
properly be said to be necessary. 

AVhether a particular means employed be or 
be not necessary, is not a question of constitu- 
tional law, therefore, but a question of fact, to 
be determined like any other question of fact. 
But to ask whether the government has a right 
to use a means conceded to be necessary to put 
down a rebellion, is no question at all — it is 
simply nonsense. I say, then, that the govern- 
ment, in proclaiming martial law and arresting 
persons for treasonable olfences, has designed to 
act in obedience to the constitution, and not in 
violation of it. Whether it has misjudged or not 
in regard to this necessity in particular instances, 



is entirely another thing. And I insist that the 
only way to test the constitutionality of any par- 
ticular act of this kind, is to determine whether 
or not it was necessary — or in other language, 
whether it was calculated to aid the government 
in suppressing the lebellion. If it was thus 
necessary, then it was constitutional — if it was 
not, then it was unconstitutional. In my judg- 
ment, this is the beginning and the end of all 
legitimate inquiry upon the subject. Disserta- 
tions, therefore, upon the civil powers of the 
President, upon the constitutional guaranties o^ 
life, liberty and property, and upon the rights of 
the States, have no application to the question. 
Nobody claims that the President can do these 
things in his capacity of Chief Magistrate and in 
time of peace. His powers as civil executive 
are then limited by the restraints imposed upon 
him, as such, by the express language of the 
constitution. But the President is not merely the 
Chief Magistrate and civil executive of the na- 
tion, he is also the Commander-in-Chief of the 
army and navy — and the same constitution 
which makes him the one, makes him the other 
also. The same instrument which defines and 
restrains his powers in time of peace as civil exe- 
cutive, confers upon him every military power 
necessary to save the government in time of 
war, as Commander-in-Chief. 

The onlj' legitimate question, therefore, as I 
have before stated, is one of fact — viz : whether 
there was any necessity for the acts complained 
of — or in other words, whether these acts would 
aid the government in putting down the rebel- 
lion. This is an open question, undoubtedly — 
in regardl to which men may differ as widely as 
the poles. 

As respects military arrests, I think the govern- 
ment had a constitutional right to make them. 
And in addition to this, I must differ entirely from 
the Senator from the Third, by affirming that the 
people themselves clamorously demanded these 
arrests. So rapidly have momentous events 
rolled over us since this war began, that we 
sometimes forget the situation of atfairs and the 
state of public opinion, even a few months ago. 
If we will go back to the outbreak of this rebel- 
lion, and when our people were making their 
preparations to resist it, we shall call to mind a 
small class of persons whose atrocious language 
and conduct made the blood of every honest 
man boil with indignation — men who declared 
in our streets that our armies, composed of our 
own sons and brothers, ought to perish — who 
did all they could to prevent enlistments — who 
said that if they fought at all they would fight 
for the South — who sneered and taunted when 
our soldiers were beaten — ani who even threat- 
ened to inaugurate civil war here at home. 

In the then temper of the public mind, such 
language and conduct could not be endured. 
With almost entire unanimity the people called 
upon the Government to arrest these traitors 
and prevent their doing further mischief. In 
response to this demand, and to stop the spread 
of treason at a moment of imminent peril, the 
government did order the arrest of a few of the 
noisiest and worst of these men. And yet it is 



this which Governor Seymour pronounces a 
" high crime." It is by these arrests, made un- 
der such circumstances, that the general govern- 
ment " has treated this loyal state, it^ laws, its 
courts and its olBcers, with marked and public 
contempt, and violated its social order and 
sacred rights." according to Gov. Seytuour, and 
that " a department at Washington insulted our 
people and invaded our rights" — "and — he as- 
sures us — against these wrongs and outrages 
the people of the State of New York at its late 
election solemnly protested." 

Sir, this language is extraordinary, to say the 
least. I have already shewn that the constitu- 
tion warranted military arrests at a time of such 
peril, and that the people themselves demanded 
them. As re.spects the late election, I concede 
that every man iu the State who had been, or 
who ought to have been arrested, voted for Go- 
vernor Seymour, and no doubt, protested with 
all his might against all these arrests. I concede 
that many good and patriotic men of both part- 
ies, doubted the policy of this measure — that 
some insisted that Government had no right to 
make them at all, and that no body justitied 
the abuse of this power which was seen in a few 
instances. But when all is said, I deny that the 
majority even of those who voted the democratic 
ticket considered their rights invaded or them- 
selves insulted, because the government, iu a lew 
instances, had exercised the power to make 
military arrests. Why, Sir, some of these very 
men had been a short time before as clamorous 
as any body for these arrest>. This kind of de- 
duction from the results of the late political 
campaign is as preposterous as it would be for 
me to say, that the people of this State, at the 
late election, declared themselve.s in favor of the 
rebellion, because every sympathiser with the 
South in the slate voted the democratic ticket. 

No doubt instances of improper arresis can be 
cited. Unfortunately, it is not possible for the 
most vigilant and conscientious government to 
perform a duty like this with unerring wisdom, 
any more than it can carry on <* gigantic war 
without inflicting misery upon many innocent 
persons. Tuese errors, mistakes and uninten- 
tional injuries, are the inevitable consequences of 
a state of rebellion. 

1 know, Sir, that the right of the meanest to 
the protection of law, has been the theme of 
some of the noblest eloquence ever uttered by 
man. I never read or hear a defence of this 
bacred principle without deep emotion. No man 
has a profounder conviction of its truth than I 
have, and no man shall maintain it with greater 
zeal than myself. But in the name of our com- 
mon country ready to perish, shall this great 
truth be dragged from its high eminence, and 
employed in the work of stirring up the people 
against the government at an hour like this ? 

And now, Sir, having said thus much iu defense 
of the motive.-i and objects of the government in 
making these arrest-, alh>w me to add, that I now 
regret, and have always regretted, that arrests 
were ever made iu New York or in any staie sim- 
ilarly situated. 1 have never doubted the right, 
as I have said, but it was apparent from the first 



that the subjects of it, although temporarily 
silenced, would afterwards form themselvea into 
a hand of martyrs and thereby have incn-aHed 
power of evil, and at some future time, loo, of 
perhaps greater danger. It was certain, also, 
that politicians would not hesitate to uwe a mat- 
ter so easily perverted, and that it would be em- 
ployed by them as a means of attack upon the 
administration. In short, I feared that it would 
be used just as I Und it u.-^ed in thiu meshage. 

I must {>ass without e.\amiuation a great many 
assertions and conclusions upon this subject of 
martial law and military arrests. I cannot stop 
to consider his assertion, repeated over and over 
again in various forms of language, that lhePi»- 
sident has exercLsed more than regal powers — 
that he has assumed the right to de<.lur" war and 
then extinguish the state and national constitu- 
tions — that this is not claimed to be done "bj rea- 
son of a necessity which overleaps for a time all re- 
straint and which isjustified by a great exigency," 
but that it is claimed that his military power ex- 
alts him above his civil and constitutional rights — 
that the President and his friends hold that there 
is no sanctity in the Constitution, and that it haa 
no authority to keep the executive within its re- 
straints. There is not one word of truth in all 
this, from beginning to end. It is bold assump- 
tion, transparent fallacy and outrageous abuse o 
the general government. And it is not original 
at that. These positions were taken months ago 
by the leaders of the rebellion, and now w«3 tind 
them '* echoed " at the capitol of the State of 
New York. 

But says the Governor, Washington never de- 
clared martial law, during the revolution, 
have had no time to re-examine the history of 
that period — but grant that he did not formally 
declare martial law, did not his army, through 
the whole course ofithe war, constantly seize 
and arrest every active tory that could be found ? 
Did the cowboys of the Hudson, or spies and in- 
formers generally, enjoy the immunity here 
claimed for their lineal descendants ? Were to- 
ries permitted to hurrah for King George, and 
publish newspapers denouncing the revolution T 
Nay, further — in the whole conduct of our fa- 
thers, which his Excellency so wisely recom- 
mends us to imitate, can there be found the ex- 
ample of a party, or of a true man, that made 
war upon the government for these military ar- 
rests ? 

Again, the Governor pronounces the recent 
proclamation of emancipation to be an unconsti- 
tutional attempt, on the part of the President, 
to carry on the war, not for the restoration of 
the Uiiiou, but for the abolishment of slavery. 
He does not use this language, but no one will 
deny that this is just what he means. He says 
the government has abandoned the policy of 
Bghting simply for the restoration of the union, 
and adopted " the views ot the extreme North- 
ern Stales," by which he means abohtion as an 
end. ._, .. . 

Ailer what has already been said on this sub- 
ject durim: the progress of this deha e, it is uoi 
necessary for me to make an elaborate argumeni 
in defence of the proclamation. I must howevet 



10 



call attention to the wanton perversion of the 
the objects of the government here displayed. 
The President in his proclamation of the 22d of 
September on this subject, solemnly declared : 
" That hereafter as heretofore, the war will be 
prosecuted for the object of practically restoring 
the constitutional relation between the United 
States and the people thereof, in which States 
that relation is or may be suspended or dis- 
turbed." 

And in his proclamation of January 1st he 
again declares that he issues it " bv virtue of the 
power in him vested as Commander-in-chief of 
the Army and Navy of the United States in time 
of actual armed rebfillion against the authority 
and government of the United States, and as a 
Jit and necessary war measure for suppressing the 
rebellion." 

On another memorable occasion he said in sub- 
stance and efiect, that if he could save tlie 
Union by freeing all the slaves, he would do it. 
If he could save it without freeing any, he would 
do it ; and if he could save it by freeing a part 
and leaving a part, he would do that. That his 
sole object and effort was to save the Union — 
that he would do nothing which did not, in his 
judgment, promote this object ; and that he 
would do anything warranted by the laws of 
war which would accomplish it. 

Is not th'S language clear and unequivocal ? 
Can any man's purpose be more explicitly or 
emphatically expressed ? 

What then is the alternative % We must either 
concede that he means just what he says, and 
that he has not and will not wage this war for 
the abolition of slavery or for any object what- 
ever except the restoration of the Union, or we 
must assume that Abraham Lincoln has meanly, 
hypocritically and cowardly lied in these solemn 
declarations. 

Nobody above the grade of a pothouse politi- 
cian has yet ventured to say that. Why then 
will anybody, for mere party purpnses, so mis- 
represent the designs of the Commander-in- 
chief? 

And those who are engaged ii? this warfare 
upon the administration are not aided by quota- 
tions from the speeches of Wendell Phillips, or 
any other abolitionist. Wendell Phillips, and 
men of bis school, have no influence whatever 
with the government in the conduct of this war, 
and everybody knows it. The great mass of the 
people of the north who approve of this procla- 
mation, do so because, and only because, they 
agree wi h the President in considering it a 
necessary war measure. They think it will 
weaken the enemy land strengthen the govern- 
ment, and this for reasons which have been f r - 
quently expressed and are well understood. 
Nor is the case of these gentlemen bettered by 
the wild, senseless, inceniiary cry of "Aboli- 
tion." I have shown that any such charge is as 
"baseless as the fabric of a vision." 

When I hear a man, therefore, call the admin- 
istration and its .supporters abolitionists, I know 
that he has exhausted his reasoning powers, and 
is obliged to resort to abuse. He would compel 
an epithet to do the work of argument. And yet 



I must concede that it has its effect, for it appeals 
to the blindest and the lowest passions of human 
nature. It is as potent as whisky in raising the 
desired cheer from a certain class of men. As 
the cry of " infidel " inflames the ignorant and 
fanatical Moslem, so "abolitionist" is here the 
shibboleth of degraded politics. 

I have stated that I should make no special 
argument in defense of this proclamation. In-* 
deed, I have already said what was requisite 
upon the constitutionality of war measures. li 
this was a necessary war measure, if it would 
assist the government in putting down the re- 
bellion, then it is constitutional beyond all ques- 
tion. For I repeat, the constitution creates him 
Commander-in-Chief and commands him to "pre- 
serve, protect and defend the constitution," in 
war, as well as in peace, and in war, by the use 
of all necessary means justified by the laws of 
war. 

But, says the Governor, " The President had 
already signed an act of Congress which asserts, 
that the slaves of those in rebellion are confis- 
cate, and that the sole efTect of this proclamation, 
is to declare the emancipation of slaves of those 
who are not in rebellion, and who are therefore, 
loyal citizens." And he facetiously adds, that 
this is an extraordinary wav to uphold the con- 
stitution and restore the Union. The governor 
is obliged to pervert the facts, that he may point 
his sarcasm. 

One of the allegations here made, is that the 
" act to suppress insurrection, to punish treason 
and rebellion, to seize and confiscate the property 
of rebels and for other purposes," approved July 
17, 1862, is the same in substance and effect, as 
this proclamation, so far as the slaves of rebels 
are concerned. 

But this proclamation declares that all slaves 
in the actually rebellious states, are free, and 
that the " Executive Government of the United 
States, including the military and naval au- 
thorities thereof, will recognize and maintain 
their freedom." Therefore, the statement of the 
governor is, that the confiscation act declared 
the slaves of those in rebellion free, and pledged 
the executive, military and naval power of the 
government to maintain that freedom. Do I 
misconstrue this proposition ? I appeal to the 
context. After saying that the President had 
already signed this act " which declares the 
slaves of those in rebellion confiscate," he adds, 
" the sole effect of this proclamation, therefore, 
is to declare the emancipation of the slaves of 
those who are not in rebellion." That is, it pro- 
duces no effect whatever upon the slaves of reb- 
els, which was not already produced by the con- 
fiscation act 

If we will examine the act referred to, we 
shall find that it does not " confiscate " slaves 
at all. It confiscates the property, other than 
slaves, of certain specified persons, and it also 
declares that certain slaves of certain rebels 
shall be free. The only sections of this act 
which relate to the emancipation of slaves are 
the first, second and ninth. I will cite enough 
of these to show their provisions. The first 
section declares "that every person who shall 



11 



hereaftftr commit the crime of treason against 
th« United States, and shall be adjudged gniliy 
thereof, shall suffer death, and all his slaves, if 
any, shall be declared and made free. Or, at 
the discretion of the court, he shall be impri- 
soned for not less than five years, and fined not 
less than $1U,000, and all his slaves, if any, 
shall be declared and made free." 

The second section makes it a crime to incite 
rebellion, and declares that any person convicted 
of this offence shall be punished by fine or im- 
prisonment, and the liberation of his slaves, if 
he have any. 

The ninth section provides : " that all slaves 
of persons who shall hereafter be engaged in re- 
bellion against the government of the United 
States, or who shall, in aiiy way, t;ive aid or 
V.omfort thereto, escaping from such person or 
Imlpersons and taking refui:;e within the lines of 
the army; and all slaves captured from such 
persons or deserted by them, and coming under 
the control of the government of tiie United 
States, and all slaves of such persons found or 
being within any place occupied by rebel forces, 
and afterwards occupied by the forces of the 
United States, shall be deemed captives of war, 
and shall be forever free of their servitude, and 
not again held as slaves." 

It is not true, then, that this act " asserts that 
the slaves of those in rebellion are confiscate." 
Neither does it assert " that the slaves of those 
in rebellion are" free. It declares that the 
slaves of such rebels and inciters of rebellion as 
may be tried and convicted in a court of justice 
shall be free. It also declares that such slaves 
of rebels as may escape into our lines, or such 
as we may capture, shall be free, and this is all. 
But this perversion is so gross and palpable, 
that I need not pursue it further. 

Mr. Chairman, in my poor opinion there is 
no part of this message more incorrect in state- 
ment, unsound in conclusion and mischievous in 
tendency, than that portion devoted to the differ- 
ences of interest, views and purposes alleged to 
exist between New England and the rest of the 
loyal states ; but I have left myself no time for 
its examination. 
m This new apple of discord grew upon rebel 
I soil, and was thrown among us by the arch- 
traitor at the head of the insurrection, and sorry 
am I to see loyal men here receive it, admire it, 
furbish it up, and send it through the land to 
work its unholy and disastrous mission. 

Sir, he cannot be just who attempts to teach 
tlie different sections of the country that their 
interests are antagonistic, for there is not a state 
or community in the Union whose interest is 
not promoted by the advancement of the inte- 
rests of every sister state and community. And 
to cause one part of the loyal states to believe 
that another part entertains political views and 
purposes, in the conduct of this war, diametri- 
cally opposed to their own, is to precipitate the 
nation to certain destruction. It is " sowing the 
wind to reap the whirlwind." And, Sir, this 
most extraordinary argument is a fresh illustra- 
tion of the great inconsistency sometimes exhib- 
ited by the ablest of men. 



The Governor's message is filled with denun- 
ciations of the pers<in8 wlio, he says, systemati- 
cally and laboriously inculcated misapprehen- 
sion between the sections before the war. and 
taught them to d spise each othtjr ; and h^re, in 
time of war, when the existence of the Nation 
is trembling in the balance, he himst^lf dt-Ubft- 
rately and elaborately inculcates such misap- 
prehension between loyal stales, and teaches 
them to hate and despise each other to the ut- 
most of his ability. 

Sir, has the solemn ami prophetic warning of 
Washington, contained in his farewell address, 
ever before had so clear and distinct an applica- 
tion ? 

I will not attempt a reply to this attack upon 
the patriotism of New England. The familiar 
words of Webster, in answer to a similar attack, 
are all that need be said. They are just as ap- 
propriate here, as upon the occasion when they 
were uttered. Allow me to quote tliem : 

" I shall enter on no enconium on Massachusetts 
She needs none. Tiiere she is — behold her and 
judge for yourselves. There is her history — the 
world knows it by heart — the past at least is 
secure. There is Boston and Concord, and Lex- 
ington, and Bunker Hill, and there they will re- 
main for ever. The bones of her soas falling ia 
the great struggle for independence — are mingled 
with the soil of every state from New England 
to Georgia, and there they will live forever. And, 
Sir, where American liberty raised its first voice 
and where its youth was nurtured and sustained 
— it still lives in the strength of its manhood, 
and full of its original spirit. If discord and 
disunion shall wound it — if party strife and 
blind ambition shall hawk at and tear it — if 
folly and madness — if uneasiness under salutary 
and necessary rest aint shall succeed to separate 
it from the Union by which alone its existence 
is made sure — it will stand in the end — by the 
side of that cradle in which its infancy was 
rocked. It will stretch its arm with whatever 
of vigor it may still retain — over the friends who 
gather around it, and it will fall at last, if fall 
it must, amidst the proudest monuments of its 
own glory, and on the very spot of its origin. " 

But, Sir, I must bring these desultory remarks 
to a close. I have spoken plainly. The momen- 
tous questions we are considariug, demands 
plain speaking. I can most sincerely add, that 
I never performed a duty with more reluctance, 
than this review which I have now made of a 
portion of the Governor's message. 

I deprecate this discussion of the caoses of 
the war — and this persistent attempt to crash 
the administration at a moment of extreme peril 
It fills my mind with dire forebodings. 

It has" already divided the North— I had al- 
most said, fatally divided it. It surely cannot 
go much further without involving us in irre- 
trievable ruin. If there be those who think 
they can see peace and a restored Union- 
through the defeat of the North in this war— 
they are mad— stark mad. If there be those 
who think, that in such a disaster, their politi- 
cal opponents only will sufler, they are the vic- 
tims of an unexampled infatuation. We shall 



12 



/ 



all be saved or all be lost together. This being 
so manifest, how can we account for the conduct 
of many of our people ? Is it not enough to 
make angels weep, to see American citizens en- 
gaged in pullino down their leaders and defend- 
ers at the very moment the enemy is upon them 1 
To see them sacrificing their country and their 
all, under the insane delusion that they are 
achievins a. party victory 1 

Sir, — Is there to be no end to this? Will 
newspapers and politicians persist at all hazards, 
in spreading discord, bitterness and strife among 
the people and in the army 1 

Then, Sir, we have seen the beginning of the 
end. Our destruction is only a question of months. 
It will certainly come. 

And yet, sir, notwithstanding this deplorable 
state of things, it is not, in the language of the 
Governor, too late to save the country. It can 



be done. But there is only one way to do it.' 
We must crush out this rebellion. Nothing short 
of this will avail. 

And we can crush out the rebellion, gigantic 
as it is. We have only to be united to be ulti- 
mately victorious. We must .sustain our army 
and navy and our commander-in-chief. W*^ 
must cease to appoint and remove generals and 
to dictate the conduct of the war, as the coudi 
tion of our support. We must leave military 
affairs in the hands of those to whom they be- 
long. 

And to this end, also, patriotic ardor must 
once more be revived in the hearts of the people. 
It is there. It still burns, though deadened by 
losses and disappointments. May each one of 
us fan these embers until they blaze again with 
increase effulgence. 



\ 



